Re: auth.user refactor: the profile aproach

On Friday, April 6, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Daniel Sokolowski wrote: > How is the final approach chosen ? > > > > Adrian made the call earlier this week - we're going with Alex's approach. Jacob -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers"

Re: auth.user refactor: the profile aproach

How is the final approach chosen ? From: Alex Ogier Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 2:31 PM To: django-developers@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: auth.user refactor: the profile aproach Tai, read https://gist.github.com/2289395 for a summary of many reasons why I think profiles are a bad idea, and

Re: auth.user refactor: the profile aproach

Tai, read https://gist.github.com/2289395 for a summary of many reasons why I think profiles are a bad idea, and unifying multiple profiles is an even worse idea. Best, Alex Ogier On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Tai Lee wrote: > Alex Ogier, > > Is it really better to

Re: GSoC 2012: Security Enhancements

Hi Russel, That is a good news for me. I have added a timeline and posted it over melange. Public Gist for the same: https://gist.github.com/2203174 -- Rohan On 16:14 +0800 / 6 Apr, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > > On 06/04/2012, at 3:54 PM, Rohan Jain wrote: > > > Hi Russel, > > > > Thanks

Re: [GSoC 2012] Schema Alteration API proposal

On 06/04/12 06:34, j4nu5 wrote: Actually I am not planning to mess with syncdb and other management commands. I will only refactor django.db.backends creation functions like sql_create_model etc. to use the new API. Behaviour and functionality will be the same after refactor, so management

Re: [GSoC 2012] Schema Alteration API proposal

On Thursday, 5 April 2012 21:25:19 UTC+5:30, Andrew Godwin wrote: > > If you plan to continue using > Django fields as type information (as South does), what potential issues > do you see there? > The only issue I can think of is the case of custom fields created by the user. -- You received

Re: auth.user refactor: the profile aproach

Alex Ogier, Is it really better to require users to create their own User model that behaves like an admin user, instead of just shipping with a self contained admin user (as a profile model) without the auth component? If the auth app was purely a stub to connect different profiles and

Re: GSoC 2012: Security Enhancements

On 06/04/2012, at 3:54 PM, Rohan Jain wrote: > Hi Russel, > > Thanks for the reply. > > On 14:42 +0800 / 6 Apr, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: >> >> Hi Rohan, >> >> Apologies for the lack of response. Anyone who has put effort into writing >> up a proposal certainly deserves a response of some

Re: GSoC 2012: Security Enhancements

Hi Russel, Thanks for the reply. On 14:42 +0800 / 6 Apr, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > > Hi Rohan, > > Apologies for the lack of response. Anyone who has put effort into writing up > a proposal certainly deserves a response of some kind, so we've dropped the > ball here. > > In our defence,

Re: GSoC 2012: Security Enhancements

Hi Rohan, Apologies for the lack of response. Anyone who has put effort into writing up a proposal certainly deserves a response of some kind, so we've dropped the ball here. In our defence, here's a couple of the reasons why your proposal probably hasn't got a wild response: * You've

Re: GSoC 2012: Security Enhancements

Hi again, I really couldn't understand the response this post has got. It deserved at least a little feedback, positive or negative. I guess I wont be submitting this over melange. Still, I have put some effort and research in the proposal. So if possible I would like to know if it had anything